Has PW been infiltrated by ChatGPT?

[TomK]

That's just a lot of words put together that mean nothing at all. All you've really said is that you're speculating that there's a bot posting things on PW, and you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim.

[Wao nahele kane]

That's just a lot of words put together that mean nothing at all. All you've really said is that you're speculating that there's a bot posting things on PW, and you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim.

Fixate much? Speculation and or wondering requires no evidence. You're mistaking speculation for something like a theory that provides evidence within a grant request.  Do you think you're on the research funding board of the NIH, NFS or one of the many other grant providers? Did MyManao place a grant request with you in a PM that we aren't privy to? 
If not, how about you stop mistaking speculation and wonder with something like a grant request theory and then demanding evidence like an addlepated sphincter?  
Mahalo, brah.

[TomK]

That's just a lot of words put together that mean nothing at all. All you've really said is that you're speculating that there's a bot posting things on PW, and you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim.

Fixate much? Speculation and or wondering requires no evidence. You're mistaking speculation for something like a theory that provides evidence within a grant request.  Do you think you're on the research funding board of the NIH, NFS or one of the many other grant providers? Did MyManao place a grant request with you in a PM that we aren't privy to? 
If not, how about you stop mistaking speculation and wonder with something like a grant request theory and then demanding evidence like an addlepated sphincter?  
Mahalo, brah.

I'm just posting my opinion. I posted nothing about grants or theories.

[Wao nahele kane]

TomK,
Your opinion? Like MyManaos opinion? Damn, you're as daft as a brush.
I want evidence that it's your opinion and not some AI bollocks.
...Umkay... umkay?

[TomK]

TomK,
Your opinion? Like MyManaos opinion? Damn, you're as daft as a brush.
I want evidence that it's your opinion and not some AI bollocks.
...Umkay... umkay?

I asked a question, and it wasn't answered. Instead, it generated a post that said nothing at all. If you think I'm an AI bot, then post the evidence. It's your burden, and not mine to show otherwise. Then, there's your opinion on what a theory is. I can tell you it's not defined the way you seem to think it is. Frankly, you're just playing at being a silly bugger.

[Wao nahele kane]

TomK,
Your opinion? Like MyManaos opinion? Damn, you're as daft as a brush.
I want evidence that it's your opinion and not some AI bollocks.
...Umkay... umkay?

I asked a question, and it wasn't answered. Instead, it generated a post that said nothing at all. If you think I'm an AI bot, then post the evidence. It's your burden, and not mine to show otherwise. Then, there's your opinion on what a theory is. I can tell you it's not defined the way you seem to think it is. Frankly, you're just playing at being a silly bugger.

I shared no opinion on what a theory is, wally plonker. BUT if you think a theoretical explanation avoids evidence, you're also a Muppet.
 Now, provide the evidence that you're not an AI. That's what I want to see, right now!

[TomK]

TomK,
Your opinion? Like MyManaos opinion? Damn, you're as daft as a brush.
I want evidence that it's your opinion and not some AI bollocks.
...Umkay... umkay?

I asked a question, and it wasn't answered. Instead, it generated a post that said nothing at all. If you think I'm an AI bot, then post the evidence. It's your burden, and not mine to show otherwise. Then, there's your opinion on what a theory is. I can tell you it's not defined the way you seem to think it is. Frankly, you're just playing at being a silly bugger.

I shared no opinion on what a theory is, wolly plonker. BUT if you think a theoretical explanation avoids evidence, you're also a Muppet.
 Now, provide the evidence that you're not an AI. That's what I want to see, right now!

Your words: "You're mistaking speculation for something like a theory that provides evidence within a grant request."

You just told us what you think a theory is. You are very mistaken.

[kalianna]

Time to move to the Bicker Board, Tom.

[TomK]

Time to move to the Bicker Board, Tom.

Why? Why don't you ask the other posters to do the same?

[Wao nahele kane]

MyManao,
Lots of people do use chat gtp/AI to form posts online. Regardless of the forum, some people will copy a post from someone and paste it in a chat AI box and the AI will reply and they'll copy the AI reply and use it to form their reply to the post from that orginal someone.
Beyond the arrogant nonsense described by one TK, thinking a chat programing endeavor is somehow neccesary instead of simply copy and paste routines between a chat AI and a web forum. But using chat AIs have been used to write scientific papers as well. In fact, it's becoming a serious problem across many venues. But yes, some people do use them for forming daily posts on forums such as this one.

---

TomK,
Your opinion? Like MyManaos opinion? Damn, you're as daft as a brush.
I want evidence that it's your opinion and not some AI bollocks.
...Umkay... umkay?

I asked a question, and it wasn't answered. Instead, it generated a post that said nothing at all. If you think I'm an AI bot, then post the evidence. It's your burden, and not mine to show otherwise. Then, there's your opinion on what a theory is. I can tell you it's not defined the way you seem to think it is. Frankly, you're just playing at being a silly bugger.

I shared no opinion on what a theory is, wolly plonker. BUT if you think a theoretical explanation avoids evidence, you're also a Muppet.
 Now, provide the evidence that you're not an AI. That's what I want to see, right now!

Your words: "You're mistaking speculation for something like a theory that provides evidence within a grant request."

You just told us what you think a theory is. You are very mistaken.

Us must be you and the rock in your pocket. The only one mistaken is yourself. If you can somehow construe that as a explanation of a theory, your brain is clearly rotted. 

If you think that theory is not used as the de-facto framework for scientific grant requests, you're an idiot and need your ass waxed academically right here and now. 
Theory is an explanation of observations forged in evidence and permeates the entire framework of all science in general.

When an addlepated sphincter like yourself requires evidence for someone's "wonder", it says your brain is confusing wonder with something that requires evidence, such as a theory or a statement of proposed fact. Grant requests were cited because you act as if you're editing or reading someone's grant request that's in need of some evidence. You're just another person using a web forum here. You're not a professor here and we aren't your students and we owe you nothing with respect to evidence or anything else. You don't hold a crown that we must all bow to, and frankly, your mind is on its way out the door.

Your disjointed speculations are really tiring to keep up with and I'm not interested in trying to de-scramble your countless nonsensical statements. 

In-fact, consider this your heads up. I will be ignoring your posts from here on out, because I think you've aquired a brain dissorder of some sort and it's entirely too taxing to explain everything as if I'm conversing with a child.